14th Amendment

[USFREEDOM911]

Several States are supporting legislation that would disallow children born in the US, where neither of the parents are US citizens, from automatically being granted citizenship in the US.

Do you think this is a good idea, or not?

 

[Good Luck]

Several States are supporting legislation that would disallow children born in the US, where neither of the parents are US citizens, from automatically being granted citizenship in the US.

Do you think this is a good idea, or not?

That is not quite an accurate description. What they are proposing is denying automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. if both parents entered the country illegally. That is significantly different than simply being a non-citizen. Their supposition is illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore do not fall under 14th Amendment guarantees.

I am not sure how this would work. Certainly if a person, regardless of immigrations status, breaks a law and are prosecuted for it (which happens daily) they are under the jurisdiction of those laws and the authority that prosecutes those laws. Then again, they are also NOT under the jurisdiction of many of our laws, such as taxation, minimum wage or any other labor laws, contract law, etc. This is going to come down to how the higher courts apply the term "jurisdiction" to illegal immigrants.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

this escapade is not possible without A) amending the constitution or B) having the supreme court decide that anchor babies are not covered under the 14th, even if they were born in the US. In other words, judicial tyranny.

 

[Good Luck]

this escapade is not possible without A) amending the constitution or B) having the supreme court decide that anchor babies are not covered under the 14th, even if they were born in the US. In other words, judicial tyranny.

Question for you: why do you think the writers of the 14th Amendment include the exclusionary phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to the definition of citizenship? It must have SOME purpose.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Question for you: why do you think the writers of the 14th Amendment include the exclusionary phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to the definition of citizenship? It must have SOME purpose.

the 14th Amendment was written to override the racist supreme court ruling of dred v. scott. 'Subject to the jurisdiction of' was included to hopefully prevent jim crow laws, and though it sounded good, wasn't enforced the way it should have been.

 

[apple0154]

Question for you: why do you think the writers of the 14th Amendment include the exclusionary phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to the definition of citizenship? It must have SOME purpose.

Heads of State? After all, if the Queen of a foreign country happened to give birth while visiting her offspring would certainly not be a US citizen.

 

[Good Luck]

the 14th Amendment was written to override the racist supreme court ruling of dred v. scott. 'Subject to the jurisdiction of' was included to hopefully prevent jim crow laws, and though it sounded good, wasn't enforced the way it should have been.

How would ADDING to the qualifications needing met prevent Jim Crow laws? Including an exclusionary phrase allows, by definition, people to be excluded from the primary clause of persons born or naturalized. Way on the wrong track on this one.

It is simple: they recognized that just being born within our borders does not automatically convey citizenship - there is more involved. One obvious example would be foreign diplomats, who are excluded by international treaty from our jurisdiction. That would mean if a long-term ambassador chose to have their child while stationed within U.S. borders, their child would NOT be a U.S. citizen by birth derivation no matter what the first clause of the 14th has to say. In fact the foreign country, not to mention the ambassador, would likely object strongly to any such claim if it were made.

As such, the question remains as to who, exactly, can/should be excluded by not being technically under U.S. jurisdiction at the time of their birth? If one group of people can be obviously excluded without being specified, then the idea that others can also be so is not unreasonable. Had they wished ONLY to exclude foreign dignitaries, they would have said so. The fact that they did not indicates they had more exceptions in mind.

 

[Good Luck]

Heads of State? After all, if the Queen of a foreign country happened to give birth while visiting her offspring would certainly not be a US citizen.

On the right track, but frankly I have difficulty believing any foreign country would let their head of state visit our country while they were pregnant. We didn't have, or even seriously dream of air travel back then. Foreign diplomats, ambassadors, and the families thereof are another matter.

So would be foreign enemies. Can you imagine, in the midst of WWII, if a female German spy were to try to claim citizenship for her child because it was born in the U.S.? Or, slightly more realistically, a Russian agent at the height of the Cold War? In both cases the parents would be illegally resident in the U.S., and correspondingly not under U.S. jurisdiction.

 

[Damocles]

Several States are supporting legislation that would disallow children born in the US, where neither of the parents are US citizens, from automatically being granted citizenship in the US.

Do you think this is a good idea, or not?

It is unconstitutional. Only Congress has the power to make those definitions.

 

[Good Luck]

It is unconstitutional. Only Congress has the power to make those definitions.

Not necessarily. For one, it is the Constitution, via Amendment 14, that makes the definition. Congress does not define the Constitution except by the direct action of amending it.

Again, the question is how wide reaching is the phrase "and under the jurisdiction thereof"? Does it apply to persons entering into the country illegally or not? If it does, then the states are fully within their authority to deny automatic citizenship to children born under such circumstances. If it does not, then any such denial will be overturned in the courts.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It is unconstitutional. Only Congress has the power to make those definitions.

That's why I said "supporting".

 

[Damocles]

Not necessarily. For one, it is the Constitution, via Amendment 14, that makes the definition. Congress does not define the Constitution except by the direct action of amending it.

Again, the question is how wide reaching is the phrase "and under the jurisdiction thereof"? Does it apply to persons entering into the country illegally or not? If it does, then the states are fully within their authority to deny automatic citizenship to children born under such circumstances. If it does not, then any such denial will be overturned in the courts.

Basically what I am saying is that only Congress can make those kinds of laws per the constitution. States do not have that power.

One thing that congress could do is make a law that defines them as under some other jurisdiction. Of course this would be bad as they would no longer have to follow federal law, but it would make it so their kids would not be citizens just for being born here, like diplomats. It would be foolish but Congress could do that.

States do not have the power to attempt to define citizenship, only Congress can. It is specifically given to them in the constitution to make universal rules of naturalization...

 

[Canceled2]

The argument

"The right to United States citizenship for everyone born on American soil is described in the 14th Amendment. The state legislators argued that one phrase in the amendment -- which guarantees citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in this country 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' -- signals that it was not intended to apply to children of immigrants who do not have lawful status."

 

[Damocles]

"The right to United States citizenship for everyone born on American soil is described in the 14th Amendment. The state legislators argued that one phrase in the amendment -- which guarantees citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in this country 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' -- signals that it was not intended to apply to children of immigrants who do not have lawful status."

If they are not subject to our jurisdiction they cannot be tried for any crime committed herein. If such was their intention they should have more carefully considered their language. There is no way around that, they are either subject to US law and therefore their kids are citizens or they are not and they should not be tried for any violation of US laws. I guess we could call them prisoners of war and make it a war crime to enter the US illegally...

 

[Canceled2]

If they are not subject to our jurisdiction they cannot be tried for any crime committed herein. If such was their intention they should have more carefully considered their language.

Yes they should have. The fact of the matter is that there was no such person as an illegal alien or illegal immigrant when the 14th amendment was written. Immigrants were allowed entrance to the US if they were healthy prior to the first immigration laws which I believe dealt with literacy?

 

[Damocles]

Yes they should have. The fact of the matter is that there was no such person as an illegal alien or illegal immigrant when the 14th amendment was written. Immigrants were allowed entrance to the US if they were healthy prior to the first immigration laws which I believe dealt with literacy?

True that. I'm not sure what the first immigration laws were. Now I'm on a mission to find out.

 

[Canceled2]

True that. I'm not sure what the first immigration laws were. Now I'm on a mission to find out.

The first law on immigration was written in 1790? The first laws making a person illegal I believe happened in the late 1880's. I looked it all up before when this issue came up last year on here.

So is a child subject to its parents custody/jurisdiction or the states?

 

[Damocles]

The first law on immigration was written in 1790? The first laws making a person illegal I believe happened in the late 1880's. I looked it all up before when this issue came up last year on here.

So is a child subject to its parents custody/jurisdiction or the states?

We're all subject to the laws. If one can be brought to a trial in the US they are subject to our jurisdiction. It is one of the reasons that GITMO detainees should be tried under military tribunal rather than in US courts. But far-reaching consequences seem to constantly be ignored by leadership in this nation.

Even writing the Amendment they added "under the jurisdiction" part to exclude some Native American tribes who were considered nations of themselves. No reason to have those "dirty injuns" automatically becoming citizens. They didn't carefully consider future ramifications of such a limitation.

 

[Canceled2]

We're all subject to the laws. If one can be brought to a trial in the US they are subject to our jurisdiction. It is one of the reasons that GITMO detainees should be tried under military tribunal rather than in US courts. But far-reaching consequences seem to constantly be ignored by leadership in this nation.

Even writing the Amendment they added "under the jurisdiction" part to exclude some Native American tribes who were considered nations of themselves. No reason to have those "dirty injuns" automatically becoming citizens. They didn't carefully consider future ramifications of such a limitation.

When I read the history of the 14th i seem to recall it was Indian tribes who wished to be left not under the jurisdiction of the US?

My point about children is that unless invited either through abuse or child custody disputes, parents retain jurisdictional and custodial rights over their children. I bring this up because I believe it was also mentioned as part of the argument being prepared- If the parent is illegal so are any children born to them.

 

[Damocles]

When I read the history of the 14th i seem to recall it was Indian tribes who wished to be left not under the jurisdiction of the US?

My point about children is that unless invited either through abuse or child custody disputes, parents retain jurisdictional and custodial rights over their children. I bring this up because I believe it was also mentioned as part of the argument being prepared- If the parent is illegal so are any children born to them.

Which doesn't change that they are subject to our jurisdiction which is the only requirement. They are citizens upon birth because they are subject to our jurisdiction. They can't even be "illegal" if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction. You can't break a law you are not subject to.